New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

January 4, 2016

Let's discuss this and come up with a forum standard going forward.

My feeling is the best way to do it is:
a) Make a comment or fifteen on what you're sharing.
Copy and paste a small portion of the beginning of the piece. No more
than a paragraph or two.
c) Post a link asking the reader to 'click here to read more' or something
of the sort.

Vic Sage · January 4, 2016

Totally agree -- the reposting of other's work en toto is not cool.

Frayed Knot · January 4, 2016

Vic Sage wrote:
Totally agree -- the reposting of other's work en toto is not cool.

It's also boring.
The idea here is not just to plaster the board with the writings of others but to post your ideas on a topic backed-up, if you choose, by the facts or opinions of outsiders.

Ceetar · January 4, 2016

Frayed Knot wrote:

Vic Sage wrote:
Totally agree -- the reposting of other's work en toto is not cool.

It's also boring.
The idea here is not just to plaster the board with the writings of others but to post your ideas on a topic backed-up, if you choose, by the facts or opinions of outsiders.

boring is different. Yes it's boring, but you can post a whole article and then have discussion on it, just lead that discussion, especially if it's a new thread. If you want to talk about the whole article, about the whole topic, then post the whole thing. Don't give me homework.

Other than that, I have no problem with the way we do things now.

January 4, 2016

Ceetar wrote:
Other than that, I have no problem with the way we do things now.

Alert the media, Ceetar takes the contrary side on an issue.

Ceetar · January 4, 2016

d'Kong76 wrote:

Ceetar wrote:
Other than that, I have no problem with the way we do things now.

Alert the media, Ceetar takes the contrary side on an issue.

Feel free to repost my thoughts in their entirety. I fall heavily on the free information side of things and would much rather, as a writer, have millions of people reading my work in "non-authorized" places than try to police and control it all. This is very different than reposting it in it's entirety on another blog or without credit in a way that obfuscates who wrote it. But that's not what we're doing here. We're posting a topic of baseball minutia for discussion. Adam Rubin gets far more credit and reputation for a discussion of his article than from 5 extra clicks on ESPN's website.

And contrary in the sense that there are usually multiple sides to any issues, yes, but it's hardly contrary in the sense that it's an unpopular opinion.

January 4, 2016

"What I'd have preferred had I written the article" isn't exactly an airtight defense.

Frayed Knot · January 4, 2016

Forcing someone to 'Click Here' for the entirety of the article being sampled is hardly "homework", and it's certainly less homework than having to read an entire article first and then trying to figure out what that poster who threw it up there found interesting/controversial/newsworthy/blasphemous or whatever about it in the first place.

Instead, how 'bout reprinting what you think is the salient part of a piece,
ex: Here's what Peter Gammons said about the Mets reluctance to sign Cespedes -- sentence - sentence - sentence [click here for full article] and here's why I think this move has Jeffy's fingerprints all over it ...

That's a helluva lot better for a lead in to a discussion than is boring old (and illegal old) cut 'n paste jobs of someone else's work.

Ceetar · January 4, 2016

yes, post the relevant pieces you want to discuss.

but if you want to discuss the entire thing, post the entire thing. This is a discussion forum, it's not a content producer. That's a big difference (and in the legal/fair use way too) and it's not like we posting the stuff un-credited. When we discuss a Joel Sherman article he gets credit for everything he said in there. we're not passing it off as original thought. we're not profiting from it. It's very much a branding thing, in that this still advances the Sherman brand. These discussions, even outside whatever platform Joel writes for, have currency. Perhaps ultimately MORE currency than a couple extra clicks on a corporate website that maybe down the line show up favorably in a "click per author" spreadsheet that his boss sees during performance review.

January 4, 2016

d'Kong76 wrote:
My feeling is the best way to do it is:
a) Make a comment or fifteen on what you're sharing.

Copy and paste a small portion [crossout]of the beginning[/crossout] of the piece. No more
than a paragraph or two .
c) Post a link asking the reader to 'click here to read more' or something
of the sort.

January 4, 2016

I completely agree with the new policy.

Clicking on the "corporate website" of say the Daily News is something that helps keeps operations like the Daily News in business as advertising rates are partially based on clicks. If you want to keep those guys in business then give them a hand and don't steal their stuff.

dgwphotography · January 4, 2016

I completely agree with this, and I'll just add here what I posted in the other thread:

Anyone who creates content cares about their copyright, and it is up to us to respect that copyright.

ceetar wrote:
I'm not going to give those guys extra clicks anyway.

That's not for you to decide. Whether you agree or don't agree with what they stand for doesn't change the fact that they, or the entity the work for, owns the copyright to their work. As such, they are entitled to monetize their content as they see fit. If you don't want to click on their links that's your prerogative, but out and out stealing their content is not the way to go about it.

Centerfield · January 4, 2016

The new policy makes a lot of sense. I'll work within those guidelines.

Just want to point out here that batmags and ceetar seem to fall on the same side of this debate. That's pretty notable.

January 4, 2016

d'Kong76 wrote:
Let's discuss this and come up with a forum standard going forward.

My feeling is the best way to do it is:
a) Make a comment or fifteen on what you're sharing.

Copy and paste a small portion of the beginning of the piece. No more
than a paragraph or two.
c) Post a link asking the reader to 'click here to read more' or something
of the sort.

I'm on board with this. It's a solid rule of thumb Kase.

Ceetar · January 4, 2016

it's not a copyright violation. I'm not stealing anything. I'm reading it in a forum. What if you printed it out and handed it to me? nope, not a violation. What if was broadcast on my TV and I recorded it and showed it to all of you in my home? nope, not a violation.

My thoughts here are primarily about the news/beat type articles which are more amenable to fair use anyway. I have a hard time calling an Adam Rubin post about the '86 celebrations on Memorial Day with a few mentions about what they did in '06 as 'content' except in the strictest sense. There's not a lot of artistic work going on in a news report. I understand that it gets murkier as it's further editorialized, but as all we're doing is furthering the discussion of a news item, with credit!, I find it hard to really worry about whether or not I clicked through to the original source or not. Technically this is a public site, and that's where the violation would come in, but it's really more of a small isolated group. It's not even crawled that well. Have there been any salient court cases differentiating a message board/forum from a more standard website/blog? I view this as much of a private discussion among like-minded individuals, like an email newsgroup or a Slack group or chat room. Any re-post is at least three clicks from a homepage. And it's like like we're setting up an RSS feed of a writer's work.

It's not the writer we're interested in, it's the content itself. we're discussing it. we're _transforming_ it into a discussion of the news item at hand. When I repost Rubin's 30th anniversary post and comment about how I really like the replica ring giveaway and it's much better than the lame video programming they did in 2006 that's fair use. This is news propagating and commenting and criticism and all those things governed by fair use. And there's nothing inherently special about using Rubin instead of say Maria Guardado's post on the same topic. Another example of fair use because the work itself isn't particularly creative.

I'd also like to point out that I'm pretty sure I've never copy and pasted an entire article here, I usually link and comment. I just happen to be interested in the evolving nature of media and content and how it's governed.

RealityChuck · January 4, 2016

Ceetar wrote:
it's not a copyright violation. I'm not stealing anything. I'm reading it in a forum. What if you printed it out and handed it to me? nope, not a violation.

Unless you have permission from the copyright holder, you can't republish their work. Printing it out is not republishing it.

What if was broadcast on my TV and I recorded it and showed it to all of you in my home? nope, not a violation.

TV has a special dispensation; you are allowed to make a home recording for home use (but not for public performance). That doesn't apply to written text.

My thoughts here are primarily about the news/beat type articles which are more amenable to fair use anyway.

There's not clearcut rule, but fair use only allows you to use portions of a work, not its entirety.

I have a hard time calling an Adam Rubin post about the '86 celebrations on Memorial Day with a few mentions about what they did in '06 as 'content' except in the strictest sense. There's not a lot of artistic work going on in a news report.

Doesn't matter. It's protected by copyright.

I understand that it gets murkier as it's further editorialized, but as all we're doing is furthering the discussion of a news item, with credit!, I find it hard to really worry about whether or not I clicked through to the original source or not. Technically this is a public site, and that's where the violation would come in, but it's really more of a small isolated group. It's not even crawled that well. Have there been any salient court cases differentiating a message board/forum from a more standard website/blog? I view this as much of a private discussion among like-minded individuals, like an email newsgroup or a Slack group or chat room. Any re-post is at least three clicks from a homepage. And it's like like we're setting up an RSS feed of a writer's work.

Lots of rationalization here, but ultimately, the law is the creator holds the copyright and is the one who decides how the work can be reused. Not you.

It's not the writer we're interested in, it's the content itself. we're discussing it. we're _transforming_ it into a discussion of the news item at hand. When I repost Rubin's 30th anniversary post and comment about how I really like the replica ring giveaway and it's much better than the lame video programming they did in 2006 that's fair use. This is news propagating and commenting and criticism and all those things governed by fair use. And there's nothing inherently special about using Rubin instead of say Maria Guardado's post on the same topic. Another example of fair use because the work itself isn't particularly creative.

I suggest you actually look up fair use:

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Note #3. And #4 also comes into play, since the website is selling ads, and posting the article means fewer people see them -- which hurts them financially.

I'd also like to point out that I'm pretty sure I've never copy and pasted an entire article here, I usually link and comment. I just happen to be interested in the evolving nature of media and content and how it's governed.

As am I, but the difference is that I look at what the law actually says, instead of making pronouncements about how I want it to be.

I think this is a great change, not only due to the law, but due to the fact that it's silly to copy an entire article to comment on it. If someone is too lazy to click on a link, that's too bad.

Benjamin Grimm · January 4, 2016

RealityChuck wrote:

it's not a copyright violation. I'm not stealing anything. I'm reading it in a forum. What if you printed it out and handed it to me? nope, not a violation.

Unless you have permission from the copyright holder, you can't republish their work. Printing it out is not republishing it.

What if was broadcast on my TV and I recorded it and showed it to all of you in my home? nope, not a violation.

TV has a special dispensation; you are allowed to make a home recording for home use (but not for public performance). That doesn't apply to written text.

My thoughts here are primarily about the news/beat type articles which are more amenable to fair use anyway.

There's not clearcut rule, but fair use only allows you to use portions of a work, not its entirety.

I have a hard time calling an Adam Rubin post about the '86 celebrations on Memorial Day with a few mentions about what they did in '06 as 'content' except in the strictest sense. There's not a lot of artistic work going on in a news report.

Doesn't matter. It's protected by copyright.

I understand that it gets murkier as it's further editorialized, but as all we're doing is furthering the discussion of a news item, with credit!, I find it hard to really worry about whether or not I clicked through to the original source or not. Technically this is a public site, and that's where the violation would come in, but it's really more of a small isolated group. It's not even crawled that well. Have there been any salient court cases differentiating a message board/forum from a more standard website/blog? I view this as much of a private discussion among like-minded individuals, like an email newsgroup or a Slack group or chat room. Any re-post is at least three clicks from a homepage. And it's like like we're setting up an RSS feed of a writer's work.

Lots of rationalization here, but ultimately, the law is the creator holds the copyright and is the one who decides how the work can be reused. Not you.

It's not the writer we're interested in, it's the content itself. we're discussing it. we're _transforming_ it into a discussion of the news item at hand. When I repost Rubin's 30th anniversary post and comment about how I really like the replica ring giveaway and it's much better than the lame video programming they did in 2006 that's fair use. This is news propagating and commenting and criticism and all those things governed by fair use. And there's nothing inherently special about using Rubin instead of say Maria Guardado's post on the same topic. Another example of fair use because the work itself isn't particularly creative.

I suggest you actually look up fair use:

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Note #3. And #4 also comes into play, since the website is selling ads, and posting the article means fewer people see them -- which hurts them financially.

I'd also like to point out that I'm pretty sure I've never copy and pasted an entire article here, I usually link and comment. I just happen to be interested in the evolving nature of media and content and how it's governed.

As am I, but the difference is that I look at what the law actually says, instead of making pronouncements about how I want it to be.

I think this is a great change, not only due to the law, but due to the fact that it's silly to copy an entire article to comment on it. If someone is too lazy to click on a link, that's too bad.

It's also silly (and lazy) to do what I just did. I used the quote feature on an entire lengthy post when it's the post previous to mine and I'm only commenting on a small part of it.

Ceetar · January 4, 2016

I did, in fact, look up fair use. And like most laws, there's a lot of conflict out there about how it's used, or should be used, or has been used. etc. I found more than 2 places that specifically states full-excerpts are okay in certain instances. I'd argue that this is one.

Technically wouldn't Rubin holds the copyright but the ad revenue goes to ESPN? Also I might attempt to argue that frequent discussion of Adam Rubin's work leads to more interest in his work as a whole, and more likely we'd visit the site to read other things he's written or will write. I think it'd be hard to argue we're costing the cite money. I'd ask to see the pageviews on articles we re-posted and ones we didn't and see no demonstrable difference. So the numbers don't support a loss of revenue there. So the only one of the four fair use limitations that might be violated is 3, but what I'm reading seems to suggest that's only used as a modifier of the other ones and doesn't really stand on it's own.

Centerfield · January 4, 2016

One way to settle this could be to just email Rubin and ask him right? He's pretty responsive to emails.

Man. If only we knew someone who writes articles on the internet for a living.

Ceetar · January 4, 2016

Centerfield wrote:
One way to settle this could be to just email Rubin and ask him right? He's pretty responsive to emails.

Man. If only we knew someone who writes articles on the internet for a living.

Isn't that like asking Ruben Tejada about wRC+?

January 4, 2016

At my previous place of employment, when we switched to a digital-first format, we were assigned monthly page view quotas and our bonuses were tied to meeting our goals. And for the site overall, advertising rates were based on the site's total page views, just like it used to be based on circulation.

So as an author, I'd get upset when people cut-and-pasted my stories into blogs and forums and things. It was affecting my paycheck. I needed the clicks, even if it was just five or 10 or 30 people, it got me that much closer to the monthly quota. And the legal folks were quick to pounce when, say, a local television station would do that to one of our stories, since they were hurting our bottom line in addition to taking our work.

Again, will someone from ESPN come after the 'Pool? Probably not. But I totally get why it's bad to cut and paste entire articles.

batmagadanleadoff · January 4, 2016

Centerfield wrote:

Just want to point out here that batmags and ceetar seem to fall on the same side of this debate.

Not really. I've got a pretty good idea of what "fair use" means and I didn't just learn it today. I just don't think that the Daily News, et. al. give a flying shit about what goes on here re using their stuff. But what's next now? Do youse have a problem with images too? What about posts that include images of baseball cards? Several baseball cards? And what about custom or DIY baseball cards? Because we don't have the rights to the images on those DIYS or the rights to the baseball card designs copped from Topps and Fleer and Bowman, either. And what about baseball players in general? And Mets? Did Fred Wilpon give this forum permission to reproduce the Mets logo or wordmarks? Maybe youse are draining money from Wilpon that could be used to re-sign Yoenis. And that picture of Shea at the banner or top of this forum. It's a post card. Did the forum get permission to use that? And what about photoshopping Jeff Wilpon's mug into the shot where Jack Ruby gives it to Lee Harvey Oswald? Actually, that one might be fair use. But did youse get permission from the rights holder just to be safe in case a court might decide that it isn't fair use? Or did youse just wing it, figuring that you can always delete the post should you get a warning letter?

I guess that Babe Ruth images are permissible. At least the ones where he's in a Red Sox uniform. Charlie Chaplin images from his one reeler era are allowed, too, because the copyright laws don't go that far back in time.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Guest

Centerfield · January 5, 2016

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote:
So as an author, I'd get upset when people cut-and-pasted my stories into blogs and forums and things. It was affecting my paycheck. I needed the clicks, even if it was just five or 10 or 30 people, it got me that much closer to the monthly quota.

End of discussion no? People need to make a living.

January 5, 2016

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
I've got a pretty good idea of what "fair use" means and I didn't just learn it today.

LOL.

January 5, 2016

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
And that picture of Shea at the banner or top of this forum. It's a post card. Did the forum get permission to use that?

It's from a Manny Hanny ad in an old yearbook. In the interest of due
diligence I tried on several occasions to contact Manufactures Hanover to
gain permission but for some reason all attempts fell on a deaf ear. So yeah,
we winged it.

January 5, 2016

I thought this idea was a good one but it's just gonna turn into
something more. Again. Do whatever 'youse' feel is best.

Thank you for your time.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Guest

dgwphotography · January 5, 2016

d'Kong76 wrote:

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
And that picture of Shea at the banner or top of this forum. It's a post card. Did the forum get permission to use that?

It's from a Manny Hanny ad in an old yearbook. In the interest of due
diligence I tried on several occasions to contact Manufactures Hanover to
gain permission but for some reason all attempts fell on a deaf ear. So yeah,
we winged it.

If you want any shots of Shea to put up there, let me know.

dgwphotography · January 5, 2016

d'Kong76 wrote:
I thought this idea was a good one but it's just gonna turn into
something more. Again, Do whatever 'youse' feel is best.

Thank you for your time.

It is a good idea, and a rule that I think should be adhered to.

January 5, 2016

Thanks, that image is just traditional at this point. I think until the
Mets do something or spring training gets closer everything here is
gonna be a federal case.

January 5, 2016

Framing this policy as a "legal issue" only served to trip up Ceetar, and anyone could have predicted it'd raise the suspicions of BatMags who in my opinion, likely sees this as the Anti BatMags Act of 2016.

We really shouldn't post whole articles here primarily because they often interfere with or supercede conversation, and also because it might be against the law and/or screw over writers whose $$ depend on the clickzz.

Nobody asked but the thing that bothers me most is when we link to and/or cut-n-paste aggregated or secondhand content: For example, the Post gets the scoop but Rubin gets the clicks for a hasty rewrite with the word Report: in the headline, or vice versa. Megdals not exactly out there burning the shoe leather himself - he's a hustler alright, but nearly all the facts, quotes and figures he assembles were initially gathered by others in a different context.

Sign In

New Policy on Posting Stuff from Other Sites

Recommended Posts

Guest d'Kong76

Guest d'Kong76

Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket

Guest d'Kong76

Guest sharpie

Guest themetfairy

Guest Mets Guy in Michigan

Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket

Guest d'Kong76

Guest d'Kong76

Guest d'Kong76

Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blog Entries

Recent Status Updates